Hawkins v. McGee

84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

George Hawkins (plaintiff) underwent a failed skin grafting surgery by Edward McGee (defendant). The dispute arose from McGee’s alleged guarantee of perfect results post-surgery which did not materialize.

The issue presented was whether McGee’s assurance constituted a warranty for the surgery’s success.

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire concluded that jury determination was appropriate for deciding on warranty presence and ordered a new trial based on the proper assessment of damages according to contract law principles.

Rule of Law

Rule of Law Icon

When one party breaches a contract, the other party is entitled to compensation for reasonably foreseeable losses at the time the contract was signed. The purpose of awarding damages is to place the non-breaching party in the position they would have been if the breach had not occurred.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Doctor Edward McGee (defendant) operated on patient George Hawkins (plaintiff) in an attempt to remove scar tissue from his hand by replacing it with a skin transplant from his chest.

Hawkins consented to the operation after being assured that the procedure would be a success, yet it was unsuccessful. Hair grew thickly on Hawkins’s palm, where Dr. McGee grafted the skin from his chest.

Hawkins sued McGee, claiming that McGee had broken an implied guarantee that the procedure would be successful. The trial judge concluded that Hawkins should be compensated for his pain and suffering during the surgery and any further harm from the procedure.

The trial court awarded Hawkins damages. As a result, McGee filed a motion to vacate the verdict due to the excessive damages set by the court. And the trial court decided that the damages were excessive and reduced them to $500. The plaintiff disagreed and appealed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Issue

Issue Icon

Are the damages awarded by the trial court appropriate?

Holding and Conclusion

Analysis Icon

No.

The plaintiff suffered a legal injury due to the unsuccessful surgery that was contractually guaranteed to be successful. The trial court erred in calculating damages based on the value of the plaintiff’s hand if it had not been injured and its value after surgery. A new trial was ordered to calculate damages, and the plaintiff is limited to seeking compensation for expected losses.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The Supreme Court reasoned that Hawkins was entitled to compensation for the difference between the “hairy palm” he received as a result of the failed surgery and any additional damages caused by the breach of contract. It’s called “expectation damages,” which means putting the person back in the position they would have been if the contract hadn’t been broken.

A court must consider all foreseeable losses that can reasonably be expected to come out of a dispute. Unforeseen financial losses cannot be factored into any monetary award for damages.

Relevant FAQs of this case

How much compensation should a patient get for a failed surgery?

When you elect to undergo a surgical procedure, it’s important to consider the medical malpractice implications and how you could be compensated for a failed surgery.

To recover damages for failed surgery, you must show that the doctor owed you a duty of care, breached that duty, and that breach caused you harm. In many cases, these elements can be easily established. However, when it comes to the actual cause of an unsuccessful surgery, it can be difficult to establish exactly who or what was responsible.

In the event of a failed surgery, you may be able to recover damages for:

  • The cost of fixing the mistake.
  • Pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
  • Future medical costs.

Medical malpractice is a common problem in the United States, as thousands of people each year suffer from mistakes during their surgery. In fact, according to the study published in May 2015 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG), there were approximately 27% of avoidable injuries due to medical errors in hospitals across the country.

Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Contracts